Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fuller v. Eichor, 99-7388 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7388 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7388 HENRY A. L. FULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY EICHOR, Director; CAPTAIN LOFTUS; LIEUTENANT DAVIS; LIEUTENANT SIMPSON; SERGEANT ROBINSON; SERGEANT VANDERMOSEN; SERGEANT MCKENNEY; SERGEANT MERRIT; OFFICER COCH; OFFI- CER ANDERSON; OFFICER RICHARDSON; OFFICER MAYBRE; OFFICER PHILLIPS; OFFICER JANE DOE; MEDICAL SUPERVISORS NURSE AUSTIN AND NURSE MAGGIE, each individually as employees of the Greenville County Dete
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7388 HENRY A. L. FULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY EICHOR, Director; CAPTAIN LOFTUS; LIEUTENANT DAVIS; LIEUTENANT SIMPSON; SERGEANT ROBINSON; SERGEANT VANDERMOSEN; SERGEANT MCKENNEY; SERGEANT MERRIT; OFFICER COCH; OFFI- CER ANDERSON; OFFICER RICHARDSON; OFFICER MAYBRE; OFFICER PHILLIPS; OFFICER JANE DOE; MEDICAL SUPERVISORS NURSE AUSTIN AND NURSE MAGGIE, each individually as employees of the Greenville County Detention Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-98-1770-6-24) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry A. L. Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., CLARKSON, FORTSON, WALSH & RHENEY, P.A., Greenville, South Caro- lina; Matthew Philip Utecht, HAYNSWORTH, MARION, MCKAY & GUERARD, Greenville, South Carolina; Thomas Carl Cofield, BARNES, ALFORD, STORK & JOHNSON, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Fuller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fuller v. Eichor, No. CA-98-1770-6-24 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer